Don't ask Don't tell anyone about the repeal

[Orogun01]

Chin up guys and gals we are going to have a fabulous military, fierce.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026108-503544.html

[Rosbjerg]

It's good to see that this came through - homosexuals usually take excellent care of their body, so they make physically topnotch soldiers.

[Hurlshort]

It's about time

[~Di]

It is indeed about time. I'm glad to see this, but seriously it should have been done two years ago via executive order, as Obama promised. Finally, we'll stop losing good soldiers because someone with a grudge outs him/her.

[Guard Dog]

I used to have a problem with this. When i was in the military anyone who was openly gay (or even thought to be) could expect to be ostricised and probably get their ass kicked on a regular basis. Look, I know what you are thinking but I have no problem with somones sexual preference, that is just how it was.... 20 years ago. The military is not a social experiment, sometimes rules that seem wrong to freedom loving people have to be made to ensure good order and discipline. And yes, I know there are endless historical examples to prove that homosexuals make just as good a soldier as the next guy... i get it. I don't disagree, that is just how it was... 20 years ago.

 

Now, a lot has changed in the last 20 years. Nobody who was in when I was is there now, and attitudes about homosexuality have certainly changed for the better in society as a whole. Now it is no big deal (which it should not be) and this new policy reflects that.

[Monte Carlo]

Chin up guys and gals we are going to have a fabulous military, fierce.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026108-503544.html

 

Yeah, those Spartans couldn't fight for ****, could they?

Edited December 19, 2010 by Gorth
Lnaguage

[RPGmasterBoo]

Amusing.

 

And completely irrelevant to the functioning of an army. Yet another case of retarded civilian policies making their way into the military.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Why didnt they allow homosexuals to serve in the first place? Is it a christian thing or just old-school homophobia?

[Hurlshort]

Why didnt they allow homosexuals to serve in the first place? Is it a christian thing or just old-school homophobia?

 

Technically they could serve, they just couldn't openly be gay. It was definitely a homophobia issue. As GD pointed out, twenty years ago homophobia wasn't just accepted, it was expected. Society still has a long way to go, but this is a good show of progress.

 

Now let's get on with the gay marriage issue

[RPGmasterBoo]

Let's not.

[Gorgon]

. The military is not a social experiment

I'm sure there were lots of people who had similar arguments about letting blacks into the military. The organization will adapt and be no worse off for it.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Gorgon

[Monte Carlo]

. The military is not a social experiment

I'm sure there were lots of people who had similar arguments about letting blacks into the military. The organization will adapt and be no worse off for it.

 

^ He shoots, he scores.

 

Precisely.

[Guard Dog]

. The military is not a social experiment

I'm sure there were lots of people who had similar arguments about letting blacks into the military. The organization will adapt and be no worse off for it.

 

^ He shoots, he scores.

 

Precisely.

Yes that was EXACTLY the argument that was used, and at the time it was correct. During WWI all American military units were segregated but the valor dispayed by the 10th Cavlary & 92nd & 93rd Infantry Divisions of the 1st AEF broke down a lot of the barriers and led to full integration during an following WW2. It was an idea whose time had come and for the most part it was accepted easily. Now, what do you think would have happened had Lincoln tried that during the Civil War? Or McKinley during the war with Spain?

 

Change comes on it's own and usually it comes without complaint and leaves people wondering why it hadn't happened earlier. But if you try to force it before everyone is ready, it is messy.

 

Gay soldiers are not going to have an easy time of it at first. Just as black soldiers didn't. But not far down the road, no one will think a thing about it. However, had this been rammed down everyones throats 20 years ago, it would have been much more difficult.

[Hurlshort]

GD isn't arguing that it is right to discriminate, he's just saying it is a process and doesn't happen overnight. I think the government took way too long on the matter, this could have easily been done 5 years ago.

[Orogun01]

. The military is not a social experiment

I'm sure there were lots of people who had similar arguments about letting blacks into the military. The organization will adapt and be no worse off for it.

 

^ He shoots, he scores.

 

Precisely.

Yes that was EXACTLY the argument that was used, and at the time it was correct. During WWI all American military units were segregated but the valor dispayed by the 10th Cavlary & 92nd & 93rd Infantry Divisions of the 1st AEF broke down a lot of the barriers and led to full integration during an following WW2. It was an idea whose time had come and for the most part it was accepted easily. Now, what do you think would have happened had Lincoln tried that during the Civil War? Or McKinley during the war with Spain?

 

Change comes on it's own and usually it comes without complaint and leaves people wondering why it hadn't happened earlier. But if you try to force it before everyone is ready, it is messy.

 

Gay soldiers are not going to have an easy time of it at first. Just as black soldiers didn't. But not far down the road, no one will think a thing about it. However, had this been rammed down everyones throats 20 years ago, it would have been much more difficult.

African-Americans in the service during the years of the war with Spain, the Civil War, hell even the War of Independence, displayed acts of great courage. I'm not sure of how the consensus was among enlisted men to whether or not blacks deserved to serve alongside whites. But i'm sure that no white complained when his life was saved by a black man.

Point is; military on those times may have been more open to the idea of a desegregated military. The problem; as usual, came from back home where a precedent like this may have caused pause. Not to say that it would had been completely rejected by some, even hidden.

Whilst homosexuality carries a different connotation than race; it's not a fair comparison after all, it may have been that closeted gays serving during these 20 years may have changed the views within the military.

Because sometimes it's don't have to ask, don't tell, we know.

[Volourn]

"homosexuals usually take excellent care of their body, so they make physically topnotch soldiers."

 

False streotype with no basis in fact. Just like non homosexuals, homosexuals come in all sizes, shapes, and health.

 

Anyways, about time this was repealed. 'Twas a dumb law.

[Guard Dog]

GD isn't arguing that it is right to discriminate, he's just saying it is a process and doesn't happen overnight. I think the government took way too long on the matter, this could have easily been done 5 years ago.

Yep, and Yep.

[Rosbjerg]

False streotype with no basis in fact. Just like non homosexuals, homosexuals come in all sizes, shapes, and health.

 

Really?

[Aram]

The downside is we have one less card to play to get out of fighting should we ever get drafted.

[Monte Carlo]

All-black combat units were only used towards the end of WW2, led by white officers who were extremely racist. Even by the standards of the time (I'm not a revisionist). The results were mixed but subsequent events showed that there was no reason why soldiers of any ethnicity couldn't work in integrated combat units.

 

OTOH, the British and French armies, with long histories of Empire used all-black or Asian combat units who performed with distinction. Then again, different cultural and social issues.

 

With Gay soldiers integration is easier. A gay soldier will look much like a straight one. If, on a two-way range you are worried about someone's sexual preferences then you need to sort your head out. There are better things to be getting on with. In any case, gay soldiers have existed in every army since time immemorial, covertly tolerated by a sensible chain of command. Now there need be nothing covert about it.

 

I take Guard Dog's view and largely agree with it, twenty years ago this would be harder. But we are where we are.

 

The biggie, however, is female combat troops. This won't work, there you go I've opened up a new front on the equality war. The British army has just kicked it into the long grass for another ten years.

[Hurlshort]

The biggie, however, is female combat troops. This won't work, there you go I've opened up a new front on the equality war. The British army has just kicked it into the long grass for another ten years.

 

Well, the Iraq war has pretty much ended that policy for the US. The front lines are undefined, and they need female troops out in the community. Here is a good article on it.

 

Granted, the policy is still to not allow female troops in certain regiments, I believe. But the Iraq war has shown that women are very capable. The only reason to maintain the policy is the fact that young women are more important than young men to a society.

[Orogun01]

The biggie, however, is female combat troops. This won't work, there you go I've opened up a new front on the equality war. The British army has just kicked it into the long grass for another ten years.

 

Well, the Iraq war has pretty much ended that policy for the US. The front lines are undefined, and they need female troops out in the community. Here is a good article on it.

 

Granted, the policy is still to not allow female troops in certain regiments, I believe. But the Iraq war has shown that women are very capable. The only reason to maintain the policy is the fact that young women are more important than young men to a society.

And the fact that war would be specially harsh to a woman, more so if she it's captured.

[Guard Dog]

I would never agree to allowing women to serve in the infantry or armor. Physically they just cannot do it. Yes some can, 98% can not. I had a discussion with a femal Marine i served with about that. She was insistent that a woman could fight as well as a man. I told her I'd agree if just one time she could finish a run. In the Marines the whole unit does PT together 4 days a week. Usually it's the daily dozen exercises (push ups, mountain climbers, bend & thrust, etc) followed by a 3-4 mile run in formation. Behind the formation there is a safety vehicle (pick up truck, hummer, whatever) with a corpsman and some other stuff in it. Well, there were eight women in my unit and not one of them, not a single one, ever finished a run in the formation. Every one, every time, they fell out and finished the run riding in the back of the truck. In the marines, every man had to pass the combat PFT every year, that included a six mile run in full uniform & 782 gear (pack, flack jacket, web gear, rifle, & magazines) rope climb in full uniform, and 100 yrd firemans carry in full gear with the "wounded man" in full gear. This is along with the rgular PFT everyone takes (Women are exempt from the Combat PFT). I have never met a female Marine who COULD do that.

 

Now don't get me wrong, they can serve and excell in every other capacity including tactical command and fighter pilots, but not as infantry. That is one glass ceiling that should not be shattered. And yes, I know that means there will never be a female Commandant of the Marine Corps since infantry service is prerequisite.

[Guard Dog]

One intersting story though. The women often posted higher aggregate rifle range scores than the men did in Boot Camp. I always wondered why until a former shooting instructor from the MCRD in San Diego explained it to me. Most men by the time they joined (between ages 17-21 typically) had had some exposure to shooting firearms. The M-16A2 (no longer in use but that was what we had at the time) does not shoot like "your daddys huntin' rifle) as my Drill Instrctor used to say. So the male recruits had to unlearn some bad habits to become proficient with the M-16. The women by and large had never fired a rifle before so they learned how to do it right the first time with no bad habits to break. The guy who got the highest range score in my boot camp platoon had lived in Boston his whole life and had never shot a rifle before enlisting. Interesting stuff.

[Walsingham]

This is an interresting question, and one I'd like to respond to in a little detail. But for now:

 

1. The military in a democracy need to reflect the mores of the culture they serve, or abandon the support of that culture.

 

2. I certainly have no objection to the courage, discipline etc of homosexuals, and see no reason why there should be a decrement in the military virtues simply because of where the individual wants to push their junk. *

 

3. Various military organisations have accepted homosexuality without an apparent loss of function.

 

HOWEVER

 

4. There is a profound virtue to be found in the existing military culture and ethics.

 

5. The above preclude homosexuality on grounds that it interferes with normal intense bonds which occur on the front line but which have nothing to do with sex.

 

6. I suggest that accepting homosexuals is not a one item modular change. It is a whole system change.

 

7. Conducting that change is not going to be straightforward. It may not even occur. This will leave our Forces weakened in the short term.

 

8. It may be that in the long term the benefits outweigh the negatives. It will permit the Forces to compete for public support. It will prevent the alienation of homosexuals, with attendant loss of skills and even hostility. It will prevent homosexuality - an extremely common phenomenon - being a route for corruption and compromise of personnel.

 

*Having observeerd squaddies on the pull, I can testify to the fact they'd put their junk in some bloody awful places.